Resolving Disputes from the 2013 Elections in Kenya and the Emerging Jurisprudence requirement of sufficient cause must still be fulfilled. To be heard before the hearing commences, a cursory glance at the pleadings, especially the affidavit in support of the petition or the application for scrutiny, should clearly and precisely make out the petitioner’s case for scrutiny.133 Such an affidavit must be sworn by a credible witness who should depose to the grounds for this belief, for instance, that invalid votes were counted or valid ones were improperly rejected, if that is the allegation in the petition, or any other reason why the conduct of the election in question was believed flawed. Even in cases of narrow margins of victory where applications for scrutiny are normally heard before the hearing commences, it must be clear from the pleadings that the counting was flawed. In all other cases, the petitioner has to lay a foundation for an order of scrutiny by adducing sufficient and credible evidence to show the need for scrutiny. He has to prove that the irregularities or malpractices complained of were so widespread, or so pervasive that they affected the final tally of the votes134 or those they ultimately substantially and materially affected the result of the election. 135 There are several cases where this threshold was met and scrutiny was granted. In Richard Kalembe Ndile v. Patrick Musimba Mweu,136 where sufficient evidence of, inter alia, alterations and errors in Forms 35 and 36 which affected the result of the election was adduced, the court had no difficult granting the petitioner’s application and ordering a scrutiny of the election materials in all the 164 polling stations in Kibwezi West constituency. Similarly, in Hassan Abdalla Albeity v Abu Mohamed Abu Chiaba & another,137 in which the authenticity of the forms used was in issue, the court granted a similar order for scrutiny of the entire Lamu County. In Dickson Daniel Karaba v. John Ngata Kariuki & 2 Others138 where, under cross-examination, the Returning Officer conceded that he had wrongly tallied the votes from various polling stations and as a result declared the respondent, instead of the petitioner, as the winner, the court ordered a scrutiny that confirmed that evidence and voided the election. Further, in William Maina Kamanda v. Margaret Wanjiru 133 See Philip Osore Ogutu vs Michael Aringo & 2 Others Busia High Court Election Petition No. 1 of 2013. 134 Philip Mungu Ndolo v Omar Mwinyi Shimbwa & 2 others, Mombasa High Court Election Petition Number 1 of 2013. 135 Hassan Mohamed Hassan & another v IEBC & 2 others, Garissa High Court Election Petition 6 of 2013. 136 Machakos High Court Election Petition No. 7 of 2013. 137 Malindi High Court Election Petition 9 of 2013. 138 [2014] 5 KLR (EP) 388. 264